At 07:23 PM Wednesday 1/31/2007, Julia Thompson wrote:
>Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
> >> Behalf Of Julia Thompson
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:02 PM
> >> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> >> Subject: Re: What science fiction writer are you?
> >>
> >> Charlie Bell wrote:
> >>> On 31/01/2007, at 2:35 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Posted to a friend's blog... who discovered that he is David Brin.
> >>> I came out as Benford.
> >> I came out as Hal Clement.
> >
> > So did I...he seems to be the most common answer.
> >
> > Dan M.
>
>Maybe here -- the other place I've seen this, the first person


Male or female?


>came out as Tiptree.


-- Ronn!  :)



_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 1/31/2007 9:35:28 PM, Charlie Bell (charlie@...) wrote:
> On 01/02/2007, at 2:13 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
>
> > IOW, will the daughter universes be as favorable for life as ours,
> > or
> > will they be random iterations?
>
> Very tiny, almost unmeasurably small, bits of our universe are
> favourable to life. This whole "fine tuning" set of arguments
> strikes
> me as looking at the whole thing arse-about-face. Life has done
> pretty well on one planet in the entire universe. Now, there's a
> convincing set of arguments that emergent properties might lead to
> life on many planetary bodies (and the evidence is starting to take
> shape that life may well have moved between bodies in our Solar
> System), but for now, we only know for sure that life exists on one
> planet. Anywhere.
>
> Even most of our planet is bloody dangerous for humans... This
> continent certainly is.
>

Heh!
I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant having
differing values.


xponent
Columbia Memorial Maru
rob


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 1 Feb 2007, at 03:05, Jo Anne wrote:

> Hi List --
>
> OK, so once again I'm waaay off everyone else here.
>
> I'm William Gibson (?)!
>

And I'm Frank Herbert!

--
William T Goodall
Mail : wtg@...
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy
to kiss. - David Brin

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 01/02/2007, at 3:40 PM, Doug wrote:

>>
>> Yeah. Claire said that Glory Season pisses her off 'cause Brin comes
>> across as badly sexist. I don't see it, but I guess that's the
>> point...
>
> What's her rational?

Assuming you meant rationale, um. I don't know. That's just what she
said when I waved it at her and said she might like it. "No, I've
read it and it pissed me off, Brin seems to be really sexist and
think women are inferior and it's more than the world-building,
that's cool, it's just the way he writes women."

So, using my female-male dictionary, I have no idea really. She likes
Banks a lot though.

Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 01/02/2007, at 10:22 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:

>
> Heh!
> I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant having
> differing values.


I know that's what you meant, but it still seems to be a wrong-way-
round argument. Even if those constants were different, whatever the
universe described was like (assuming there was at least some form of
matter and some form of chemistry) might be able to form life on one
tiny speck amongst all its vast space, and that life might say "isn't
it amazing, this universe seems perfect for life". To take Douglas
Adams' puddle a step further, it's like a shower of rain in the
middle of the Sahara and a tiny puddle formed in a hollow of rock
saying that it seems to fit the hole perfectly, even as the rest of
the desert is parched and the puddle itself is evaporating in the
sirocco.

Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Just in case you do before he gets home to look into it himself:

http://hdan.livejournal.com/68015.html

(And I'm sure he made the joke in front of the mutual acquaintance who is
now working for MicroSoft....)

 	 Julia

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> At 07:23 PM Wednesday 1/31/2007, Julia Thompson wrote:
>> Dan Minette wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
>>>> Behalf Of Julia Thompson
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:02 PM
>>>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>>>> Subject: Re: What science fiction writer are you?
>>>>
>>>> Charlie Bell wrote:
>>>>> On 31/01/2007, at 2:35 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Posted to a friend's blog... who discovered that he is David Brin.
>>>>> I came out as Benford.
>>>> I came out as Hal Clement.
>>> So did I...he seems to be the most common answer.
>>>
>>> Dan M.
>> Maybe here -- the other place I've seen this, the first person
>
>
> Male or female?

I'm not sure, to be honest.

>> came out as Tiptree.
>
>
> -- Ronn!  :)

	 Julia

and did you consider the possibility of transsexual one way or the other?
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 2/1/2007 7:33:42 AM, Charlie Bell (charlie@...) wrote:
> On 01/02/2007, at 10:22 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
> >
> > Heh!
> >
> I'm thinking more along the lines of Pi, C, or Planks Constant
> having
> > differing values.
>
>
> I know that's
> what you meant, but it still seems to be a wrong-way-
> round argument. Even if those constants were different, whatever the
> universe described was like (assuming there was at least some form
> of
> matter and some form of chemistry)

Well....that is pretty much what I was getting at, that chemistry
might not be possible in some configurations. Or that even atoms might
not be possible.
WRT that, I think it is a valid question.



>might be able to form life on one
> tiny speck amongst all its vast space, and that life might say
> "isn't
> it amazing, this universe seems perfect for life". To take
> Douglas
> Adams' puddle a step further, it's like a shower of rain in the
> middle of the Sahara and a tiny puddle formed in a hollow of rock
> saying that it seems to fit the hole perfectly, even as the rest of
> the desert is parched and the puddle itself is evaporating in the
> sirocco.
>

That is certainly true and I agree. If there is chemistry there is
always some potential for life. But if there is no chemistry in a
universe it would likely be an uninteresting place. (Though there
could be room for some sort of sapience quite different from our own.)

I think I understand your objections. Such discussions tread quite
close to the playground of the ID crowd and I'm not interested in
their fanciful ontologies.

What I'm actually interested in knowing is if the daughter universes
"inherit" the physical properties of the parent universe or if they
are a complete reformulation of a timespace from scratch. For me, it
is the difference between barely relevant and completely
irrelevant.<G>


xponent
Continuui Maru
rob


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 02/02/2007, at 11:02 AM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:

>
> Well....that is pretty much what I was getting at, that chemistry
> might not be possible in some configurations. Or that even atoms might
> not be possible.
> WRT that, I think it is a valid question.

Sure, but there will also be many many different ways of producing
matter and chemistry. There'll be a whole range of values that'll
allow complex reactions, and there'll be values that are much more
favourable to life than ours.

>
>
>
>> might be able to form life on one
>> tiny speck amongst all its vast space, and that life might say
>> "isn't
>> it amazing, this universe seems perfect for life". To take
>> Douglas
>> Adams' puddle a step further, it's like a shower of rain in the
>> middle of the Sahara and a tiny puddle formed in a hollow of rock
>> saying that it seems to fit the hole perfectly, even as the rest of
>> the desert is parched and the puddle itself is evaporating in the
>> sirocco.
>>
>
> That is certainly true and I agree. If there is chemistry there is
> always some potential for life. But if there is no chemistry in a
> universe it would likely be an uninteresting place. (Though there
> could be room for some sort of sapience quite different from our own.)
>
> I think I understand your objections. Such discussions tread quite
> close to the playground of the ID crowd and I'm not interested in
> their fanciful ontologies.

Precisely. It's a bit close to the argument that you can calculate
the probability that a particular protein forms by chance and use
that as an indication of how ridiculously improbably evolution is,
when in reality you can change up to 40% of the amino acids in many
enzymes and they can still perform a similar function (or a different
one...). Or a small change might produce a totally novel function (as
with the sudden appearance of nylonase). The point is, there's
nothing special about any particular configuration.

So yes, I do bristle a bit at similar phrasing on the "fine-tuning"
of the universe.

>
> What I'm actually interested in knowing is if the daughter universes
> "inherit" the physical properties of the parent universe or if they
> are a complete reformulation of a timespace from scratch.

That's a far more interesting line of thought and I know you were
heading that way. It's something the black-hole-to-daughter-universe
crowd have speculated on, Brin has alluded to it, Baxter has written
a novel based around it. Yes, if daugter universes have very similar
but not necessarily identical properties to the parent universe, then
lineages of universes that produce more universes will produce more
universes than ones that produce less... (sorry that's sort of
tautological, but you know what I mean). But unless there's some sort
of max limit on universe numbers and therefore there are frequencies
of properties, then it's all a bit meaningless as there's no
selection, and that's the bit that would allow the relative succuss
to be manifested.

Basically, as soon as one property is unbounded (like infinite space
to expand), then evolution just doesn't work as evolution is a change
in the relative frequencies of measurable properties of a replicating
system over time.

However, that we're in a universe of matter and chemistry might then
be easier to understand as a lineage of universes producing matter
and chemistry would lead to daughters of matter and chemistry.

Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

> -----Original Message-----
> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>
>
> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
> >
> > "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating any
> > start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
>
> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big Crunch.

It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the mechanism for
going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it might best
be described by waving one's hands and muttering.

The reason for this is the state of the universe after virtually every Big
Crunch state that could exist and it's state just before the Big Bang are
radically different. It's true that both cases could be seen as a
singularity.  But, the Big Bang starts at a unique point, out of 10^x
possible states, where x is a very very big number.  Probably > 1 million,
but I don't have time to do the estimate this morning. :-)

So, it is far more likely for every glass that have fallen off shelves to
spontaneously reverse and reconstruct than for the Big Crunch to end in a
state that can result in a Big Bang....well at least with known physics.
And, for those folks tasked with developing new physics, they could pull
untestable mechanisms out of the air, I suppose, but that kind of latitude
would allow for almost anything.

Dan M.


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

<http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/02/01/nanomachine.reut/index.html>


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329703480-117700,00.html

"Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby
group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine
a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush
administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the
shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely
regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change
science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions
targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which
expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and
invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20
of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration.
Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of
AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,
attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and
dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by
the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore
the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast
doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming.
"It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort
science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the
Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review
undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the
public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to
take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI,
who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists,
economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent
review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC
report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says
that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other
group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We
don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the
report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know
if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen,
that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve
Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the
Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April.
It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the
planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5
to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's
most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's
leading authority on climate change and its latest report will
provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific
understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more
convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due
to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to
unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted
international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change.
However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own
agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a
thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual
Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of
their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science;
they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a
suitcase full of cash."
On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will
launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among
its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human
activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs
attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there
is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming."

--
William T Goodall
Mail : wtg@...
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great
evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. -
Richard Dawkins


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-
>> bounces@...] On
>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>>
>>
>> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating
>>> any
>>> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
>>
>> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big Crunch.
>
> It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the
> mechanism for
> going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it
> might best
> be described by waving one's hands and muttering.

But isn't that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The
differences are lost on this non-physicist...

Of course, given the general state of reportage these days, they
could have said anything.

Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 05:26:50 -0800, Charlie Bell <charlie@...>
wrote:

>
> On 01/02/2007, at 3:40 PM, Doug wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yeah. Claire said that Glory Season pisses her off 'cause Brin comes
>>> across as badly sexist. I don't see it, but I guess that's the
>>> point...
>>
>> What's her rational?
>
> Assuming you meant rationale, um.

Yep, sorry.

   I don't know. That's just what she
> said when I waved it at her and said she might like it. "No, I've
> read it and it pissed me off, Brin seems to be really sexist and
> think women are inferior and it's more than the world-building,
> that's cool, it's just the way he writes women."
>
> So, using my female-male dictionary, I have no idea really. She likes
> Banks a lot though.

I was curious because I remember Brin being pissed off because someone else (a
feminist organization I think) had a similar reaction.  I'm pretty sure he
considers himself a feminist and Glory Season to be pro-feminist.

I read the book some ten years ago and don't remember that much about it.

Congrats on the job, BTW.  Sounds like things are falling into place for you and
Claire.

--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Bell" <charlie@...>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


>
> On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-
>>> bounces@...] On
>>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
>>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>>> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating
>>>> any
>>>> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
>>>
>>> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big
>>> Crunch.
>>
>> It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the
>> mechanism for
>> going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic that it
>> might best
>> be described by waving one's hands and muttering.
>
> But isn't that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The
> differences are lost on this non-physicist...
>
> Of course, given the general state of reportage these days, they
> could have said anything.
>


I think the key "new" idea is given in this paragraph:

"At the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts
individually instead of pulling back together in a reversal of the Big
Bang. The patches become an infinite number of independent universes
that contract and then bounce outward again, reinflating in a manner
similar to the Big Bang. One patch becomes our universe."

In all the Big Bang/Big Crunch concepts that *I* have personally read
about, the idea revolved around a single universe expanding,
contracting, and reconstituting itself endlessly. Sort of an eternal
reciprocating cycle.

What makes this idea different is that it posits an eternal branching
of new discrete entities. IMO the concept bears only a superficial
resemblence to Bang/Crunch theories, but more closely resembles the
theories where black holes generate universe entities. Well....not in
the maths and physics areas of course, but in the sense of how one
tries to visualize the bigger picture of extra-universal relation. The
Bang/Crunch can be described as a simple circle, but this new theory
(as far as I understand it) would resemble a branching tree or a sort
of fractal sargassum.

AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
we know it.
Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less
background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might
edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea of "where
spacetime/reality comes from" to be fascinating, and discussions of
such to be entertaining.
Endlessly useless, but entertaining.<G>


xponent
Of Eshatological Importance To The Skrulls Maru
rob



_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Rob wrote:

> AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
> we know it.
> Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less
> background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might
> edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea of "where
> spacetime/reality comes from" to be fascinating, and discussions of
> such to be entertaining.
> Endlessly useless, but entertaining.<G>

I probably have less expertise than either of you, but though I probably should
just believe the experts, I can't get rid of my skepticism concerning the Big
Bang.  Everywhere we look, from the microscopic to the vastness of space, we see
constructs that are orbital in nature and that together with other constructs of
similar size are the building blocks for the next larger construct.  Atoms,
solar systems, galaxies.  Are we so sure that the galaxies and other constructs
we observe in space aren't part of some fantastically, unimaginably large
construct that is itself just one of many?  Isn't it egotistical to place
ourselves at the center of the universe in this respect?

--
Doug
Spellcheck complete maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Just off the top of my head:

I'd add another legislative body that consisted of elected representatives from
each country.

I'd give it the ability to tax international commerce to fund itself.

I'd allow it to accept volunteers for its peacekeeping force that would then owe
allegiance to no single nation.

--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Charlie Bell charlie@...
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 07:29:10 +1100
To: brin-l@...
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model



On 03/02/2007, at 1:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-
>> bounces@...] On
>> Behalf Of Charlie Bell
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:55 PM
>> To: Killer Bs Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model
>>
>>
>> On 01/02/2007, at 1:20 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "This cycle happens an infinite number of times, thus eliminating
>>> any
>>> start or end of time," Frampton said. "There is no Big Bang."
>>
>> Um... I thought Big Bang theory doesn't rule out a prior Big Crunch.
>
>> It doesn't rule it out because nothing is ruled out, but the
>> mechanism for going from a Big Crunch to a Big Bang is so problematic
that it
>> might best be described by waving one's hands and muttering.

>But isn't that what these guys are proposing, in effect? The
>differences are lost on this non-physicist...

>Of course, given the general state of reportage these days, they
>could have said anything.


Well, I think I understand what they are saying...or at least what makes
sense out of the report.  My references are a bit old....from 25 year old
cosmoloy, so Rich might correct me a bit, but since he hasn't answered
here, I'll give it a try.

The critical thing to point at is the evidence for dark energy.  The
acceleration of the expansion of the universe requires some force/energy
behind it.  It's unseen, and thus called dark energy.  This allows some
freedom in the definition of space after the universe expands for billions
and billions of additional years.  What I don't understand is how dark
energy can cause symmetry to return to space....alowing for small patches
of it to freeze and produce new universes.

The advantage of these schemes is that there is real evidence for dark
energy...so that parameter isn't just a free one.  But, the theories like
the one proposed are still minimally constrained...so we should expect a
lot of different explainations to fit data.

Dan M.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Doug brighto@...
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 12:33:41 -0800
To: brin-l@...
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


Rob wrote:

> AFAICT it is all meta-physics and only nominally related to reality as
> we know it.
> Like Charlie, I am not a physicist. Unlike Charlie, I have even less
> background to speculate from. So if anyone has even specks that might
> edify me I would be interested. I find the whole idea of "where
> spacetime/reality comes from" to be fascinating, and discussions of
> such to be entertaining.
> Endlessly useless, but entertaining.<G>

>I probably have less expertise than either of you, but though I probably
should just >believe the experts, I can't get rid of my skepticism
concerning the Big Bang.  >Everywhere we look, from the microscopic to the
vastness of space, we see constructs >that are orbital in nature and that
together with other constructs of similar size are >the building blocks for
the next larger construct.

Actually, atoms, protons, neutrons, pions, etc. are not orbital in nature.

>Atoms, solar systems, galaxies.  Are we so sure that the galaxies and
other constructs >we observe in space aren't part of some fantastically,
unimaginably large construct >that is itself just one of many?  Isn't it
egotistical to place ourselves at the center >of the universe in this
respect?

Why egotistical?  Science is not about uncovering mysteries and truths,
it's about modeling observation.  The Big Bang does a very good job of
that.  There are lotsa cross correlations with other observations, there is
a tremendous amount of data that are consistant with the Big Bang., etc.

Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-)

Dan M.

--
Doug
Spellcheck complete maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Doug wrote:
> Just off the top of my head:
>

And if I were an evil dictator, I'd:

> I'd add another legislative body that consisted of elected representatives
from each country.

Make sure my henchmen won the elections in my country.

> I'd give it the ability to tax international commerce to fund itself.

Let you go ahead with that.  I do lots of off-the-books smuggling,
anyway.

> I'd allow it to accept volunteers for its peacekeeping force that would then
owe allegiance to no single nation.

The volunteers from my country would need to send money home
to support the families that stayed behind.  I wouldn't even
have to point out that "accidents do happen", my reputation
would make that clear.

Muhbwahhahah!

				 ---David

Sorry, just feeling negative today.


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 04/02/2007, at 6:48 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:

>
> I think the key "new" idea is given in this paragraph:
>
> "At the turnaround, each fragmented patch collapses and contracts
> individually instead of pulling back together in a reversal of the Big
> Bang. The patches become an infinite number of independent universes
> that contract and then bounce outward again, reinflating in a manner
> similar to the Big Bang. One patch becomes our universe."

Ah, yes. My brain didn't parse that properly the first time.

Still, it doesn't seem to change anything we know about the expansion
phase of this universe, just postulate a different end. I'm in no
position to judge the maths though.

Charlie.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

----- Original Message -----
From: <dsummersminet@...>
To: <brin-l@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


>
> Finally, what if Wheeler is right about the universe. :-)
>

[Guessing]
Delayed Choice?


xponent
Anthropic Digressions Maru
rob


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Bell" <charlie@...>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@...>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Endless Universe Made Possible By New Model


>
> Still, it doesn't seem to change anything we know about the
> expansion
> phase of this universe, just postulate a different end.

No, I don't believe it addresses expansion but in the most indirect of
ways. As much as I am given to understand, there has not been an
accounting that allows for enough mass to cause an eventual collapse.

>I'm in no
> position to judge the maths though.
>
Yoiu're in better position than me.<G>



xponent
Ilmathematic Maru
rob


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 3 Feb 2007, at 23:23, David Hobby wrote:

> Doug wrote:
>> Just off the top of my head:
>>
>
> And if I were an evil dictator, I'd:
>
>> I'd add another legislative body that consisted of elected
>> representatives from each country.
>
> Make sure my henchmen won the elections in my country.
>
>> I'd give it the ability to tax international commerce to fund itself.
>
> Let you go ahead with that.  I do lots of off-the-books smuggling,
> anyway.
>
>> I'd allow it to accept volunteers for its peacekeeping force that
>> would then owe allegiance to no single nation.
>
> The volunteers from my country would need to send money home
> to support the families that stayed behind.  I wouldn't even
> have to point out that "accidents do happen", my reputation
> would make that clear.

Nice cerise uniforms with lots of braid. And pointy hats with
horsehair plumes. And funny marching.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : wtg@...
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.'
There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
-John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

I'm finding out that Digital Rights Management - DRM - isn't just a
Microsoft conspiracy.

I paid for, and downloaded, an AD/HD related PDF document written by a
psychologist.

I didn't mind paying the small fee since I found it useful and informative.

What I DID mind was, discovering after I paid and downloaded, that it is
protected by Adobe DRM.  To open the PDF, I had to be connected to the
internet so the document could authenticate to a Adobe server the first
time. Now, I can only open it on the one single computer. If I want to open
it on another computer, that computer MUST have a connection to the
internet, and the license transferred to that computer, via Adobe's DRM
certificate server.

Additionally, there's a limited number of times I can copy or move the file
on my computer, then it self destructs and will no longer open.  I'm also
limited on the number of times I can print it.

I understand that an author wants to protect the copyrighted work that he
created, but limiting the number of times you can move or print it, on your
own computer, is a little too much control, not to mention the fact it's
reporting that data to Adobe.

And, if you look at this specific document from a content point of view,
it's so specialized, there's virtually no risk of it being copied and shared
like a software program.

Gary    -------> getting off my soapbox now.




"This and no other is the root
from which a tyrant springs; when
he first appears he is a protector."

~Plato




_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Gary Nunn wrote:
>
> I'm finding out that Digital Rights Management - DRM - isn't just a
> Microsoft conspiracy.
>
No, it's not. It's an Adobe conspiracy. Adope is so much more Evil
than Micro$oft, that it makes M$ look like a Charity Company.

But I guess under Vista those things will acquire a new level of
Evil.

Alberto Monteiro
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

> > I'm finding out that Digital Rights Management - DRM - isn't just a
> > Microsoft conspiracy.
> >
> No, it's not. It's an Adobe conspiracy. Adope is so much more
> Evil than Micro$oft, that it makes M$ look like a Charity Company.
>
> But I guess under Vista those things will acquire a new level of Evil.
>
> Alberto Monteiro



How so?  I keep hearing rumors and theories, but haven't heard any specifics
yet.

Gary



_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 05/02/2007, at 2:24 AM, Gary Nunn wrote:

>
> Additionally, there's a limited number of times I can copy or move
> the file
> on my computer, then it self destructs and will no longer open.
> I'm also
> limited on the number of times I can print it.

Hmmm, I wonder if the Mac's "save to pdf" option in the print options
will allow you to get past that. :-)

Charlie

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

On 2/4/07, Charlie Bell <charlie@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/02/2007, at 2:24 AM, Gary Nunn wrote:
>
> >
> > Additionally, there's a limited number of times I can copy or move
> > the file
> > on my computer, then it self destructs and will no longer open.
> > I'm also
> > limited on the number of times I can print it.
>
> Hmmm, I wonder if the Mac's "save to pdf" option in the print options
> will allow you to get past that. :-)


I doubt it.   Even non-DRM'd pdf's that don't "phone home" can disable
printing altogether, so I doubt they'd leave any sort of save-to-file
loophole open in their nasty DRM system.  I even tried printing one of the
unprintable pdfs in a unix-based 3rd party pdf reader, and wasn't able to do
it.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16997958/?GT1=9033


Wow..... I can't even come up with a comment except:   the contrast between
her mug shot and her official flight photo is surprising.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l